Reason: Only Arabic-language references provided, and they appear to be geneological. No explanation of notability (or even whether this is a family or a tribe), and Google search provides no insight either.
Reason: No claim of notability. The previous claim, related to "Child Advocacy 360", was for a now-defunct website that doesn't appear to have been notable either.
Reason: Not a notable app. The only reference that isn't a re-gurgitated press release is
[1], which is launch publicity that doesn't suggest notability.
Reason: A dictionary def of a jargon term used in textbooks, without sufficient context for it to be understandable.
[2] suggests it might be a copyvio.
Reason: Not a notable dog. The references are all the same viral video of the dog taking a bath. Having "a large internet and social media following" isn't sufficient for notability.
Reason: No context and no references. I'm confident this does not describe "a broadcasting company" as the lede claims, but am not sure what it does describe.
Reason: PIFRA appears to be a Pakistani government payroll system, but this article doesn't describe what the system is or does, only a bunch of (unsourced and out-of-date) promises about what it will do. No references and none found.
Reason: Notability concerns. No references in the article; I can only find secondary references for a different book of the same title by
Jane Goodall.
Reason: Not a notable person. Many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body.
Reason: Not notable. While the material on the DVD release may be notable, there's no reason to assume the specific commercial release is. The only reference is to the announcement on Facebook, and other coverage is largely just a rehash of the Press Release.
Reason: Entirely unsourced; due to the long history of issues with Filipino broadcasters and the multiple pages created by this author, it's not unreasonable to require at least one reference.
Reason: Unreferenced since 2009. A "digital marketing" term not in common use. No references found that use this term, a few low-quality webpages use "multi-channel architecture" or "omni-channel architecture".
Reason: No references (apart from a non-working external link) and none found. The claim (of this being a radio show prank) makes it unlikely this is notable.
Reason:
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. A massive list of broadcast episodes; most are simply titled "Episode 1" and have a broadcast date, with no other information or sourcing.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be notable; the existing references are launch publicity and I can't find any newer references; the existing site at
[13] appears to be based out of Curacao, not New Jersey.
Reason: Not a notable darts player. There is no SNG for darts, but a person who is currently ranked
#1548 would probably not meet one if it existed. No non-database coverage.
Reason: Not a notable darts player. There is no SNG for darts, but a person with a
peak ranking in the 300s would probably not meet one if it existed. No non-database coverage.
Reason: A non-notable neologism. No references, but the term appears to have been first used by Applitools in a press release two weeks ago, with no other coverage.
Reason: No secondary sources, and it's unclear what the article subject was. Was it a physical device, a computer program, or an approach used by a human?
Reason: Doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT, the references are
WP:MILL coverage of the opening of this mosque last year, so it's unlikely to have historical value at this time.
Reason: Not a notable magazine. The only ref appears to be talking about
net (magazine), and I can't verify that magazine actually published under "Practical Web Design" elsewhere.
Reason: Not a notable actor; appearing in "small roles on television" does not meet
WP:ENT, and the only references are to his own Instagram and to IMDb, which does not meet
WP:GNG.
Reason: Not a notable event or organization. Only references to its own website are present, and no coverage found. Different from the National Toy Hall of Fame.
Reason: Not a notable organization. Running a single Chinese New Year Gala doesn't make the group notable, and the coverage appears to be
WP:MILL coverage of that event, not the group running it.
Reason: A personal bio, sourced only to primary sources, that makes no claim of notability. Being one of nine winners of an undergraduate history paper competition is not a plausible claim of notability, and cannot be verified with the existing refs.
Reason: The only references are directory entries, and a film grossing under $100k in release is unlikely to be notable. No English references found (nor an IMDb entry); I am unsure if the film had a different name in Chinese.
Reason: Not a notable software product; appears to be defunct, and most references are about the industry as a whole. Only detailed refs are (dead links) to the company itself, or its press releases.
Reason: Not a notable internet personality/literary manager. He isn't the author of the books pictured in the infobox, nor is he mentioned on the online stores used as references.
Reason: Tagged for notability with no independent references since 2011. Nothing found on Google search other than a few trivial mentions on web forums about flight simulators.
Reason: No claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines; simply being a professor is insufficient and there are no references other than the subject's personal website.
Reason: No references for this never-released (and never-developed software), and the only thing found is a Microsoft Fandom article sourced to internal documents.
Reason: A run-of-the-mill earthquake of magnitude 3.1. See
WP:NEARTHQUAKE - earthquakes of magnitude 4 ... and greater occur over 14,000 times a year and Earthquakes with M < 5 and no reported deaths or damage are very unlikely to be notable.
Reason: Primary schools are almost never notable, and this one doesn't appear to be. The only reference is dead, and references are directories or Wikipedia mirrors.
Reason: Unsourced article about what appears to be an unremarkable wooded area. Google search finds an unrelated building of this name owned by Lockheed Martin, and nothing about this forest.
Reason: Not a notable charity; local coverage in
The MetroWest Daily News on launch in 2007 isn't enough to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH and no other coverage found.
Reason: Doesn't meet
WP:CORPDEPTH, article is promotional. Their website and all references are dead; the one ref on archive.org is a press release. No substantial coverage found.
Reason: Appears to be invented by page creator; only source found is Pagat which says it was "invented" and contributed by a person with the same username as page creator; page creator also added to "Fictional card games".
Reason: Notability concerns for this open-source software product. Article has only primary sources, and the only coverage found was
a blog post that is largely a copy of this article.
Reason: Notability concerns. Unsourced except for a link to their (broken) website, and no coverage found. No claim of notability for this local church group.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be an actual term. References I could check don't use the term, and no good references found. Unclear what the subject of the article is even supposed to be.
Reason: Fails verification. No references that support anything in the article, just a bibliography of Wang L. Q. Not linked from any other page, "thermal waves" do not appear to be a basic heat-transfer method.
Reason: Fails verification. No references whatsoever, no official website, nothing found about a newspaper of this name. Most content found is about "
The Voice Cambodia".
Reason: Not a notable term. Only sourced to research papers sharing authorship by Hayati, Potdar, and Talevski; page was created by P.hayati so a likely COI. A few web hits for other meanings of the term.
Reason: Not a notable variant of
magic squares. Article cites one article from 1963, and no other sourcing found. Some other different definitions are found, but none of them are commonly used either.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be a notable book. No independent references supporting any statement in the article.
Erowid (user-generated content) and some PDF links verifies it exists, but it doesn't appear to have an ISBN or be the subject of substantial coverage.
Reason: Arbitrary topic for an article. Articles like
Anglican Diocese of Calabar should have a list of their bishops, and I can understand how a list of current bishops would be helpful. I don't see how a list of bishops in 2000 is necessary (other than that is what one primary-source list provides).
Reason: A dictionary definition - and an incorrect one, as it is "leth-gheamhradh" that is Scottish Gaelic for winter (according to Dwelly's). There are a few trivial mentions of a fair in Inverness of this name, but not enough to say anything.
Reason: Only Arabic-language references provided, and they appear to be geneological. No explanation of notability (or even whether this is a family or a tribe), and Google search provides no insight either.
Reason: No claim of notability. The previous claim, related to "Child Advocacy 360", was for a now-defunct website that doesn't appear to have been notable either.
Reason: Not a notable app. The only reference that isn't a re-gurgitated press release is
[1], which is launch publicity that doesn't suggest notability.
Reason: A dictionary def of a jargon term used in textbooks, without sufficient context for it to be understandable.
[2] suggests it might be a copyvio.
Reason: Not a notable dog. The references are all the same viral video of the dog taking a bath. Having "a large internet and social media following" isn't sufficient for notability.
Reason: No context and no references. I'm confident this does not describe "a broadcasting company" as the lede claims, but am not sure what it does describe.
Reason: PIFRA appears to be a Pakistani government payroll system, but this article doesn't describe what the system is or does, only a bunch of (unsourced and out-of-date) promises about what it will do. No references and none found.
Reason: Notability concerns. No references in the article; I can only find secondary references for a different book of the same title by
Jane Goodall.
Reason: Not a notable person. Many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body.
Reason: Not notable. While the material on the DVD release may be notable, there's no reason to assume the specific commercial release is. The only reference is to the announcement on Facebook, and other coverage is largely just a rehash of the Press Release.
Reason: Entirely unsourced; due to the long history of issues with Filipino broadcasters and the multiple pages created by this author, it's not unreasonable to require at least one reference.
Reason: Unreferenced since 2009. A "digital marketing" term not in common use. No references found that use this term, a few low-quality webpages use "multi-channel architecture" or "omni-channel architecture".
Reason: No references (apart from a non-working external link) and none found. The claim (of this being a radio show prank) makes it unlikely this is notable.
Reason:
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. A massive list of broadcast episodes; most are simply titled "Episode 1" and have a broadcast date, with no other information or sourcing.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be notable; the existing references are launch publicity and I can't find any newer references; the existing site at
[13] appears to be based out of Curacao, not New Jersey.
Reason: Not a notable darts player. There is no SNG for darts, but a person who is currently ranked
#1548 would probably not meet one if it existed. No non-database coverage.
Reason: Not a notable darts player. There is no SNG for darts, but a person with a
peak ranking in the 300s would probably not meet one if it existed. No non-database coverage.
Reason: A non-notable neologism. No references, but the term appears to have been first used by Applitools in a press release two weeks ago, with no other coverage.
Reason: No secondary sources, and it's unclear what the article subject was. Was it a physical device, a computer program, or an approach used by a human?
Reason: Doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT, the references are
WP:MILL coverage of the opening of this mosque last year, so it's unlikely to have historical value at this time.
Reason: Not a notable magazine. The only ref appears to be talking about
net (magazine), and I can't verify that magazine actually published under "Practical Web Design" elsewhere.
Reason: Not a notable actor; appearing in "small roles on television" does not meet
WP:ENT, and the only references are to his own Instagram and to IMDb, which does not meet
WP:GNG.
Reason: Not a notable event or organization. Only references to its own website are present, and no coverage found. Different from the National Toy Hall of Fame.
Reason: Not a notable organization. Running a single Chinese New Year Gala doesn't make the group notable, and the coverage appears to be
WP:MILL coverage of that event, not the group running it.
Reason: A personal bio, sourced only to primary sources, that makes no claim of notability. Being one of nine winners of an undergraduate history paper competition is not a plausible claim of notability, and cannot be verified with the existing refs.
Reason: The only references are directory entries, and a film grossing under $100k in release is unlikely to be notable. No English references found (nor an IMDb entry); I am unsure if the film had a different name in Chinese.
Reason: Not a notable software product; appears to be defunct, and most references are about the industry as a whole. Only detailed refs are (dead links) to the company itself, or its press releases.
Reason: Not a notable internet personality/literary manager. He isn't the author of the books pictured in the infobox, nor is he mentioned on the online stores used as references.
Reason: Tagged for notability with no independent references since 2011. Nothing found on Google search other than a few trivial mentions on web forums about flight simulators.
Reason: No claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines; simply being a professor is insufficient and there are no references other than the subject's personal website.
Reason: No references for this never-released (and never-developed software), and the only thing found is a Microsoft Fandom article sourced to internal documents.
Reason: A run-of-the-mill earthquake of magnitude 3.1. See
WP:NEARTHQUAKE - earthquakes of magnitude 4 ... and greater occur over 14,000 times a year and Earthquakes with M < 5 and no reported deaths or damage are very unlikely to be notable.
Reason: Primary schools are almost never notable, and this one doesn't appear to be. The only reference is dead, and references are directories or Wikipedia mirrors.
Reason: Unsourced article about what appears to be an unremarkable wooded area. Google search finds an unrelated building of this name owned by Lockheed Martin, and nothing about this forest.
Reason: Not a notable charity; local coverage in
The MetroWest Daily News on launch in 2007 isn't enough to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH and no other coverage found.
Reason: Doesn't meet
WP:CORPDEPTH, article is promotional. Their website and all references are dead; the one ref on archive.org is a press release. No substantial coverage found.
Reason: Appears to be invented by page creator; only source found is Pagat which says it was "invented" and contributed by a person with the same username as page creator; page creator also added to "Fictional card games".
Reason: Notability concerns for this open-source software product. Article has only primary sources, and the only coverage found was
a blog post that is largely a copy of this article.
Reason: Notability concerns. Unsourced except for a link to their (broken) website, and no coverage found. No claim of notability for this local church group.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be an actual term. References I could check don't use the term, and no good references found. Unclear what the subject of the article is even supposed to be.
Reason: Fails verification. No references that support anything in the article, just a bibliography of Wang L. Q. Not linked from any other page, "thermal waves" do not appear to be a basic heat-transfer method.
Reason: Fails verification. No references whatsoever, no official website, nothing found about a newspaper of this name. Most content found is about "
The Voice Cambodia".
Reason: Not a notable term. Only sourced to research papers sharing authorship by Hayati, Potdar, and Talevski; page was created by P.hayati so a likely COI. A few web hits for other meanings of the term.
Reason: Not a notable variant of
magic squares. Article cites one article from 1963, and no other sourcing found. Some other different definitions are found, but none of them are commonly used either.
Reason: Doesn't appear to be a notable book. No independent references supporting any statement in the article.
Erowid (user-generated content) and some PDF links verifies it exists, but it doesn't appear to have an ISBN or be the subject of substantial coverage.
Reason: Arbitrary topic for an article. Articles like
Anglican Diocese of Calabar should have a list of their bishops, and I can understand how a list of current bishops would be helpful. I don't see how a list of bishops in 2000 is necessary (other than that is what one primary-source list provides).
Reason: A dictionary definition - and an incorrect one, as it is "leth-gheamhradh" that is Scottish Gaelic for winter (according to Dwelly's). There are a few trivial mentions of a fair in Inverness of this name, but not enough to say anything.